Are a lot of you math and science types poor at english

  • #76
jgens
Gold Member
1,581
50
something is a theory long before it is a afact.
So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.
 
  • #77
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
So....can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.
My troll sensor reads zero.
 
  • #78
I have always studied the sciences, and I have always had very poor writing skills. For years I relied on a Dictaphone, because I actually speak very well. Thank goodness for spell check. I still sort of guess where the commas go, and often confuse their for there. Lol.
yeah, as a student whose struggled in math, i have always held mathematically inclined people to such a high standard. I'd always say, that if one was a genius in math, he could do all the other subjects with such ease. I met a student in my biology class, who is currently in calculus 3. He is getting 30s-70s on his biology quizzes. it shocked me. It prompted this question however. Id say biology involves more memorization and left sided thinking.

thanks for sharing your story dudde./
 
  • #79
4,465
72
So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.
I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.
 
  • #81
918
16
yeah, as a student whose struggled in math ...
Sportsstar, as a writer who's struggled with English, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Why is this English more exemplary than the your - you're error that got this thread started?
 
  • #82
918
16
By the way, I vote for troll. Actually, I read the posts pro and con without knowing what a troll was. The only one I ever knew about was in a short novel I read at the age of 6. That one ate goats so I thought you guys meant he was trying to get our goat which is not far off. Here is a definition I got from googling.

wiki (therefor unreliable) said:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
It's a tough call. His "Do you still beat your wife?"-like question in the subject line qualifies as inflammatory, but not controversial, irrelevant, or off-topic. It did not disrupt anything. However, the discrepency between his stated prowess in English and his actual ability makes me question his primary intent. I say he's a troll, but as with the English language, he's not very good at it.
 
  • #83
708
7
No, I don't think he's a troll. A troll would make outlandish claims. These are just simple, correctable errors. If he is trying to troll, he's not succeeding.
To quote from wiki:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response..."

A troll doesn't have to behave intentionally trollish. Seeing his behaviour in this thread and others, I think he thrives on the emotional responses to his inflammatory posts.

Edit: looks like jimmysnyder beat me to the quote...
 
  • #84
I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.
perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.
 
  • #85
38
1
perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.
Trolling is practically a sport these days. A good "troll" does not want to be discovered as such. There is a whole internet subculture associated with this.


In my opinion, this guy is "doin' it for the lulz"
 
  • #87
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73
This thread has run its course.
 

Related Threads on Are a lot of you math and science types poor at english

Replies
70
Views
8K
Replies
54
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
837
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Top